CNN
Image: NYT
On Sunday November 5, a Texan man named Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire in a small community church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He came with 15 loaded magazines and an assault rifle and shot 26 people (24 plus a pregnant woman and her unborn baby) including his main target, his mother-in-law. After running out of the church wearing a skull-face mask, Kelley was shot by a passerby in the leg and torso, but still managed to make it to his truck. A car chase then occurred, ending with a crash after Kelley shot himself in the head. Trump replied by stating: "If he [the passerby] didn't have a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have hundreds more dead." It has also been confirmed that Kelley had escaped from a mental hospital while on the Air Force. He had made death threats to his superiors and had smuggled weapons to his base. According to officers, Kelley "suffered from mental disorders" and "was a danger to himself and others."
The Trump administration is trying to make this shooting look like an issue about the mentally ill when in reality it should be seen as an issue about gun control. I think the number of guns in the US is a serious problem. It has been statistically proven that the number of guns has a positive correlation with the number of shootings, so why don't we do something about it? Yes, the Second Amendment states that all Americans have the right to bear arms, but we desperately need a more secure background check. We can't have the mentally ill walking around purchasing guns wherever they want. And it's not like the gun distributors care who's buying their products; they only care about their profit and they view the mentally ill as just another customer. How to create an extreme background check without compromising people's rights is a mystery to me, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts about it.
The Trump administration is trying to make this shooting look like an issue about the mentally ill when in reality it should be seen as an issue about gun control. I think the number of guns in the US is a serious problem. It has been statistically proven that the number of guns has a positive correlation with the number of shootings, so why don't we do something about it? Yes, the Second Amendment states that all Americans have the right to bear arms, but we desperately need a more secure background check. We can't have the mentally ill walking around purchasing guns wherever they want. And it's not like the gun distributors care who's buying their products; they only care about their profit and they view the mentally ill as just another customer. How to create an extreme background check without compromising people's rights is a mystery to me, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts about it.
25 comments:
I think it's both a mental health issue and a gun control issue. Both are issues on which more concrete progress needs to be made. For gun control, protection orders against domestic abusers need to be put into place - Devin Patrick Kelley was a domestic abuser. The Air Force domestic abuse loophole needs to be closed (as Jeff Flake plans to do), as this is a ridiculous technicality allowing domestic abusers to buy guns. There also needs to be stronger background checks that possibly go further into mental health - Jeff Flake is planning to force federal agencies to release more informations about infractions into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Hopefully these senators see through their proposed changes.
The idea that if everyone had guns these kind of events would happen less often is wrong. Statistics show that states with stricter gun laws have lower rates of gun related violent crime. Further more, the man who "stopped" this shooting with his own AR-15 was well trained in the use of semi-automatic weapons, and he happened to arrive at the scene as the shooter was leaving the church and was likely already low on ammo. It has also been reported that the shooter fired all the ammo he had by the time he died which suggests that the man who returned fire did not stop him from doing much in the first place as he was basically already done.
To answer the question, the reason nothing is ever done is because the quite small, but very well organized, NRA. What we need to do to fix this is out organize the NRA and tell the politicians what we really want.
Trump's quote that the possession of a gun by the passerby brings some truth, but most people aren't arguing for the outright ban of guns, but rather a stricter control over their sale. Also, the death toll could have and definitely should have been zero, not 26. The fact that someone can escape from a mental hospital, especially one involving the military, is appalling. Of course, background checks for those buying guns can definitely prevent other mentally ill customers from obtaining them, but it's hard to control incidents such as this one when the firearms are smuggled.
I could see how this incident could be considered a mental illness issue, but if we had stricter gun laws in place, and if the Air Force had entered kellys court-martial, an incident like this could have been prevented. I'm not saying we should completely ban guns, because I strongly believe in our right to bear arms, but stricter gun control would place rightful restrictions on who should and shouldn't obtain them.
I think that this is definitely both an issue of mental stability and gun regulations. First of all, the fact that this mass murderer with such a dangerous and troublesome record passed right under the nose of the United States Air Force is unforgivable and it shows a complete lack of responsibility and care by Air Force officials. There really is no excuse for not putting this man on the gun "blacklist" or whatever it is called. Continuing, is it just me, or does President Trump seem to have a knack for somehow disrespecting the victims of mass atrocities or disasters whenever he mentions them? It doesn't make sense to me why he would even make these comments at such a time, other than to get the attention of the media. That being said, it seems so surreal that such a horrible thing could happen in such a small town. A significant chunk, I'm talking whole percentage points, of the town's population were killed by this man on what was just another day. It just makes you really think about how vulnerable we are and how unexpected life can be, and, in a way, it is quite the scary thing.
I believe that mental illness is one element of background checks rather than being a completely separate issue. In this case, if someone had sold him the guns, mental illness is the issue of the background checks that needs to be addressed. As someone who has previously committed domestic abuse and proven to be mentally ill, the NICS or anyone performing background checks should be able to determine his illness and restrict him from buying these weapons. If, however, he had smuggled the guns without anyone knowing, then background checks wouldn't have really prevented the situation from happening anyways, making incidents like these hard to regulate. I, however, do believe we should implement stricter gun control laws to prevent more people with severe mental illnesses from buying guns in the future and causing harm to their communities.
I agree with Justin in that mental illness is an element in a background check. The articles that covered this issue states that the gun “sales were approved by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System,” which alludes to the idea that background checks need to be more secure and stronger. Additionally, Trump’s comment represents the false idea that with more guns, mass murder would be prevented because as the summary states, there is a positive correlation between the number of guns and the number of shootings. Furthermore, Kelley’s escape from the mental hospital piques my interest—how was he able to escape the hospital in the first place?
I believe that while most shootings are caused by the lack of proper gun regulations, this was more of a mental health issue. I don't exactly know how this person was able to escape the Air Force hospital, but because he was on the Air Force to begin with, gun regulation laws did not apply to him the way they do to regular citizens. I also think that deaths would not actually go down if everyone had a gun because of mental health. Many people would misuse their right and ultimately go against what the founding fathers intended a gun to be used for: security.
I would have to agree with Maria's comment. Although I do think that we need tighter gun laws, this case seems to be due to simple human error. According to the article, the Air Force failed to put him into the federal database that is referenced for background checks. If the Air Force had put him into the database, it is likely that the background checks would prevent him from obtaining a weapon. So it isn't really an issue of the accuracy of background checks and is more an issue of making sure people put in relevant information that is used in the background checks.
First of all, gun control does absolutely nothing. It just makes it harder for someone to get guns, but its side effect is that it increases black market activity. People like Devin Patrick Kelly do not follow the rules and do whatever they can to get their hands on an assault rifle or any type of firearm. In this case, he found a glitch in the Air Force system and got his hands on the gun. What is being overlooked, especially by Democrats, is mental health and the state of mental institutions in America. Remember, Kelly was in a mental institution, but he escaped and eventually was set free after the incident, while having accusations of sexual assault, animal abuse and other crimes to his record before he killed all those people. It is all about dealing with the root of the cause, which is the person's mental state of mind, rather than the symptoms of the cause, which is the gun. A gun by itself cannot kill, it takes one person to shoot it to kill.
For all the people claiming for stricter gun control, can you tell me what stricter gun control has accomplished? Because all I see with stricter gun control, ie in California, the hardest place to get a gun, is that we have seen too many tragedies, ie San Bernardino.
I believe Trump's statement about the passerby having a gun potentially saved dozens of lives may be true, but inapplicable to most shootings. Most of the time the "good guy with a gun" gets killed or injured if they try to stop an active shooter. This was a rare case and should not be conclusive in deciding that guns should be in the hands of the civilians for self defense. It is clear that this is a mental health issue compounded with loose gun laws/restrictions. The shooter was mentally unstable, but him acquiring guns, even if by an "error" is inexcusable.
To respond to Justin, I have a few comments to make. First of all, in all these mass shootings where firearms were purchased legally, it is hard to say that people don't follow rules and would do whatever to get their hands on an assault rifle or any type of firearm. Maybe this does occur, but the mass shootings of America are not done like that, and even if it is an issue, that's more of a risk for perpetrators and one cannot rule out tighter gun control without attempting it on a large scale.
I think the issue is that in places with tight gun control, weapons can be siphoned from elsewhere, so maybe it would solve things to have stronger universal gun control. Looking at different microcosms in the U.S. is pointless because it is all part of a bigger system, and instead we should look at cases like Japan, where there are a lot of precautions and an extremely low number of shootings per capita. We can even look at Australia, where new gun control was implemented after there were already a large amount of weaponns in circulation (a case like America), and reform was objectively successful.
I think with this topic comes along the age-old debate of gun laws in this country. It seems every month we are on the same topic of gun control and how we should go about it. The system we have right now is obviously flawed and reforms must surely follow suit. People such as him should not have been able to get a gun in the first place, so it amazes me that in this country, tragedies like this happens.
The human error in the Air Force for this case may have seemed like a small mishap before the shooting, but now that over 20 innocent people have died, it really shows how such a small error can have a huge and devastating effect. The first step after this is to make sure that such an error never happens again, we need to make sure that if anyone has shown any signs of a disturbed mental well-being, then they should have some sort of restriction on buying and purchasing weapons. Both changes in gun control and mental illnesses can help minimize the chances of something like this happening. The truth is that shootings will never stop happening, but the truth is also that we are able to minimize the chances of it happening, which is better than not doing anything about shootings.
In response to the question if this is a gun control issue or mental health issue, I think it is a combination of the two. I think that Kelley's mental illness must have contributed to him resorting to extreme violence, but his access to guns and ammunition gave him the means to carry out his intentions. I completely agree that we need a better way of taking care of the mental ill in this country, but I also think that had this same exact situation played out with no change to the way he was being cared for, but that he didn't have access to guns, then he might still be able to have hurt people with other weapons, but that he definitely wouldn't have been able to do the same damage he did with the guns.
I agree that this issue involves both gun control and mental health, though I believe that background checks shouldn’t be limited necessarily to those with a history of mental illness (but rather to those with prior criminal activity, which is separate). However, given the fact that the shooter was able to purchase weapons because of an air force error, this seems to be an error in the enforcement of gun control and not necessarily an error in the presence of gun control laws. Additionally, although stricter regulations should ultimately be put into place regarding the distribution and purchase of guns and such policies have had positive results in other countries, it will likely be difficult for this type of legislation to actually be put into effect in the US.
I also agree that this is a mixture of both gun control and mental health. His mental illness impaired his vision, making his moral compass all screwed up. The fact that he had access to weapons makes it a gun control issue. The state that the incident occurred in is Texas. I am not surprised that a shooting like this occurred. This is what happens when people protect guns in state like these.
I believe that this is revolving around both gun control and mental health like many people have already said. However, I think it is more specifically gun control. This guy should not have been able to obtain this gun due to his given history. I believe that this only further proves that we need to increase gun control and generally limit the number of guns circulating in our country. Gun control should also focus more on the mentally ill and look into them more. I don't really understand why people are so against an increase in gun regulations; this still leaves the 2nd amendment applicable. Additionally, I think this should be done because owning a gun is a luxury while having a life is an alienable right, which obviously should be valued more.
This is specifically a gun control problem. People with mental disabilities should have no power to purchase a gun and we as a people should have more thorough background checks on each individual. Stricter regulations should be made on people with previous criminal activity and an overall aptitude test. I believe that only people who meet both requirements should be able to get a gun. It is a matter of life and death for people around these individuals.
This is not at all a gun control problem. The shooter should not have been able to purchase a firearm under the current gun control laws, and was only able to because of the failure by the Air Force to report him. Under normal circumstances, the shooter would have been unable to obtain a gun, which shows that our current laws are successful. It is ridiculous that people look at this incident and see it as a gun control issue while simultaneously brushing off the fact that the Air Force deserves all the blame in this situation. Also, the man was stopped by a gun owner, who may have saved many more people. Though it is extremely tragic, in my opinion it shows that more gun control is not needed.
I think that this is a mental health problem, but it is also a gun problem. The government should not dismiss this mass shooting as simply a mental health problem. I think that someone in the Air Force should be held accountable, but the bigger problem is gun control not just the failure to report Kelley. The United States has one of the highest rates of death by firearm in developed countries, which is a sign that we need stricter gun laws. In our country, its pretty easy for people to purchase a gun, and it shouldn't be. Obtaining a gun should be a lengthy and carefully scrutinized process. While some people may not like stricter gun laws, if we can prevent hundreds of people from being murdered, there shouldn't be any question about it. Furthermore, other countries have instated stricter gun laws and have seen positive results and very few mass shootings.
I think that the government needs to focus on the current gun issue. I understand that mental health can be associated with mass shootings, however, there have been many instances of mass shootings that have not been related to mental health. I think it's more a gun problem. I think that there should be stricter regulations on gun control; people do have the right to bear arms under the second amendment. I think with more restrictions, people pro and against guns would be able to compromise; people can still own guns, but have to go through more work to get them.
I think that the issue of mental health when it comes to gun violence is serious, but the overall issue is the fact that it is so easy to purchase a gun for everyone, not just those who are mentally ill. I agree with Allie that many mass shootings have occurred and the gunman wasn't mentally ill, they just had access to lots of guns, especially assault rifles that can do a lot of damage. I think the government needs to work on more regulations for guns because it is becoming even more of a problem. The second amendment does give the right to bear arms, but it was also written in the past, when guns were much less advanced, and now people are using these guns to kill in masses, so some sort of change needs to occur.
A lot of people are saying that this is a gun control problem because mentally disabled people shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons. But that is already a law so most people in this comments section are arguing pointlessly. It is NOT a gun control problem because the rules are already in place. The problem is the Air Force isn't enforcing their rules. That is the only issue. So let's blame the Air Force and get out of here.
While I do agree that in general, it is too easy for an individual to purchase a gun, which is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently by the government, I do agree with Matt's comment that this issue was not really a result of the easiness of gun purchasing. This shooter in this instance acquired his weapons from the Air Force, who did not do an adequate or thorough enough job in monitoring the shooter and ensuring that as a mentally-unstable person he did not have access to weapons, or could be able to steal them when he left the Air Force. So, while I do think that the government should be doing a lot more to put gun restrictions in place, and that mass shootings should be enough to push the government to do so, this shooting was not a result of the loopholes in consumer access to guns. It is a special scenario that needs to be responded to by reprimanding the Air Force, and in the future, hopefully the government takes steps towards tightening gun restrictions not just because mass shootings occur, but because it is simply the right, logical, and necessary thing to do to ensure the safety of everybody.
Post a Comment